Bored Panda works better on our iPhone app
Continue in app Continue in browser

BoredPanda Add post form topAdd Post Search
Tooltip close

The Bored Panda iOS app is live! Fight boredom with iPhones and iPads here.

New Law Would Give People Rights To Own Pets In Rented Accommodation, But Landlords Aren’t Too Happy About It
User submission
1.5K
12.4K

New Law Would Give People Rights To Own Pets In Rented Accommodation, But Landlords Aren’t Too Happy About It

ADVERTISEMENT

Those who have a pet and are looking to rent a place are usually up for quite a challenge. There are lots of landlords who oppose people having pets in their homes. Therefore, many have to make a dreadful choice: either keeping your pet or your home.

Luckily, a new law proposed in the UK could give tenants the right to keep pets in their rented houses and apartments, but landlords are already not very happy about it. If the new bill gets passed, it would give pet owners the right to keep their beloved pets when moving to a rented property. However, there are concerns that the law could encourage landlords to add extra charges or even raise rent altogether for those wanting to accommodate their pets.

A new law is being proposed in the UK, called the Dogs and Domestic Animals bill

Image credits: skorzak

Tory MP Andrew Rosindell, who is pushing for a change, said: “sadly, pet owners moving into rented accommodation face the reality that their family could be torn apart because most landlords have unnecessary bans on pet ownership.”

Last week, the member of the House of Commons for Romford has been in discussions with landlords over the Dogs and Domestic Animals bill. They explained to landlords that the new bill will not mean that tenants have an “unconditional right” to own pets in their properties.

As “most landlords have unnecessary bans on pet ownership”

Image credits: marcyleigh

ADVERTISEMENT

He explained that anyone who wants to bring a pet into a rented property would have to pass a “responsible ownership test,” including a checklist that would be fulfilled with vaccinations, microchipping, and being responsive to basic commands. The conditions must be aimed at canines, though, as we can all testify that no cat (with a few exceptions) will answer to your commands.

If the bill’s passed, it would grant renters rights to own pets

Image credits: dfc_pcola

The proposed law has been dubbed Jasmine’s Law, after a Weimaraner dog whose family from Surrey, UK were not allowed to keep her in their rented house. MP Andrew Rosindell told the National Residential Landlords Association: “The bill will include measures to ensure that pets are suitable for the type of accommodation. The no-pet clause means someone cannot have a dog over for even a short period for fear of recriminations or losing their home. Such discrimination must now end.”

However, there are concerns landlords would charge extra for it

Image credits: andreboeni

However, a landlord Fred Cowler said while talking to The Mirror: “If it does become law, I’d want guarantees that damage and extra costs would and could be covered by the tenant.”

ADVERTISEMENT

A second reading for the bill is scheduled for January 29, 2021, and there’s growing cross-party support for the initiative. Similar bills have been already passed in France, Belgium, Germany, and Switzerland.

People online had varied opinions

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

12Kviews

Share on Facebook
You May Like
Popular on Bored Panda
Join the conversation
Add photo comments
POST
benicia_99 avatar
Azure Adams
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

There should be a different rent for children. They and families who have multiple children tend to destroy things at a much greater rate and greater level of destruction than a simple dog or cat. Children are louder, needer, much more unpredictable, and generally pricier. My cat sleeps most of the day, cleans her own butt, and is litter trained. Families and children should NEVER get special treatment of privileges. It just encourages more irresponsible breeding

chimesstreet avatar
Tabitha L
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I have often wished there were child-free airplane flights. But hey, now there is coronavirus. So a kid screaming and kicking my seat almost sounds fun. Almost.

Load More Replies...
kathrynbaylis_2 avatar
Kathryn Baylis
Community Member
3 years ago (edited) DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I hope this crosses the pond to the US too. We’re lucky in our rental, but if we moved we’d be in a world if s**t because we have four cats and a dog (all rescues—-one cat out of a barn, the dog off the street, one cat dumped in a neighbor’s yard, and two cats dumped in our yard—-one as a tiny five week old kitten!). Our house is clean as a whistle—-people who visit always comment on how they’d never know we had five pets because the house is tidy, in good repair, and does not smell of animals—-but I know another landlord would either turn us down or charge us out the wazoo for rent and pet deposit—-and that’s only IF we could find a friendly rental in the first place!

joeymarlin avatar
Joey Marlin
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

This type of legislation has already been passed in many other countries and is working well. It is to help those who lose their home but have pets so struggle to find somewhere to rent. They will need to prove themselves responsible. If they don't look after the property they'll get evicted - happens already (Covid situation aside). This isn't about serial renters who treat places badly and I've seen enough of those to know they are bigger problem by far.

Load More Replies...
kayrose avatar
RoseTheMad
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I hope this law passes. It's so freaking hard to find a decent house or even flat (apartment) that will allow your pets. I got really lucky with my current home with 3 cats, but for others, they're not as lucky. For many people, pets are literally a kind of therapy. And I'm not just talking about certified "therapy pets" and the like, I mean any pet.

mjw0sysascend_com avatar
lara
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Trust me on this NO pet can even begin to approach the damage ONE child can do.

james_fox1984 avatar
Foxxy (The Original)
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

My dog must be an exception. He chewed up roughly a square metre of lino flooring, almost chewed straight through the front door, the cords of my stereo speakers, destroyed 3 sets of blinds, chewed the cords of my slow cooker and george foreman grill and that is all I can think of right now. He is much better now. The landlord was okay about all the damage because we replaced all the lino, the front door and the blinds. He actually didn’t want us to leave and said we left the house in better condition than when we moved in.

Load More Replies...
kim-bowie avatar
Kim
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I agree that pets do less damage than some kids and many adults do. I’d be more worried about someone having lots of home parties and people coming over than someone having a companion animal. I’m not saying pets never do any damage, but to be fair most animals are much more well behaved than many humans are... lol.

banjopeppers avatar
Banjo Peppers
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

In my experience, humans make the loudest, messiest, and most destructive neighbors. It’s easier to tune out a dog barking than a child shrieking bloody murder, the smell of wet dog in the hallway dissipates faster than the smell of marijuana or burnt fish, people leave garbage all over the lawn and leave messes indoors. What’s also stupid is places that charge extra damage deposits for dogs even though cats will scratch the walls, rip up the screens, and get on top of the thing that holds the blinds. Just saying they shouldn’t charge less for cats than dogs, it should at least be equal.

ravinanimje avatar
ravina nimje
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Hope this law will be there in the whole world. We need more positive laws in life.

sammyanne1_sh avatar
Helen Haley
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I think if you can be licensed as a responsible pet owner you should be able to rent most places with 2 pets. I think weight or breed restrictions is reasonable because a sporting breed in a 600 sq ft apartment would just be cruel to the dog. I've seen the damage well behaved owners and pets do to a place vs 2 kids and an irresponsible adult. Pets are almost inconsequential, it is all about how responsible the person is, not who makes up their household.

ajones_1 avatar
A Jones
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

It be fair to add fees or something extra for damage deposit should the landlord have to handle a tenant with a pet. Pets can cause quite the additional damage if left unsupervised and/or untrained.

carrielaughs avatar
Carrie Laughs
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

It states that "anyone who wants to bring a pet into a rented property would have to pass a “responsible ownership test,” including a checklist that would be fulfilled with vaccinations, microchipping, and (in the case of dogs) being responsive to basic commands". It isn't meant to be an unconditional right. Anyone breaking the rules of the tenancy would be evicted and made to pay for any damage, just as they would if they damaged the property anyway.

Load More Replies...
martingibbs734 avatar
martin734
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I own a couple of properties that I let out and I have no problem with tenants keeping pets. The only extra condition is that any damage caused by the pet must be rectified as soon as is reasonable at the tenants own expense.

deb-lucas avatar
Dilly Millandry
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Good for you. 👍 Though I expect you would also want any damage caused by the tenants to be rectified at the tenants expense - things over and above normal wear and tear I mean.

Load More Replies...
marneederider40 avatar
Marnie
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

What sort of irresponsible dog owner would keep a dog in an apartment? I don't get it. You might like it, but what a miserable life for the dog. The dogs we had, we would let them out in the backyward any time they wanted (and back in whenever they wanted) except late at night. They spent 75% of their time outside. I have had so much trouble with dog barking at the last house I owned, I can't imagine living next to 5 apartments with dogs. Sure, the owners should be responsible, but lots of people aren't. And all owners think their quiet dog is quiet when they are not home. Many dogs will bark incessently the entire time the owner is gone. If you want to rent, maybe you don't get a dog. People feel so frickin entitled these days.

chimesstreet avatar
Tabitha L
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Yes, I have new neighbors, and they let their dogs out for hours at a time. The dogs seem to bark the entire time they are outside. It isn't so bad at 3pm, but at 6am, the constant barking does wear on my nerves. I can't imagine if I shared an apartment wall with these bark happy dogs.

Load More Replies...
dodsonmichelle avatar
Celtic Pirate Queen
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Nope. I'm sorry for any renter who has to deal with this dilemma, but not all pet owners are responsible. We moved into a house that I absolutely loved, but after 6 months I was still vacuuming up pet hair. I had to shampoo the carpet in the basement about once a month because of the pet odor. (I also washed the walls repeatedly). We finally talked the landlord into replacing it as a health hazard (both my daughter & I have asthma and couldn't spend a great deal of time down there). I couldn't believe the pad when they pulled it up. The room was about 15 x 20 and there wasn't a spot on it that didn't have a urine/poo stain. Unless your pet is a "strictly outdoors" critter, I think landlords have every right to protect their investment. Oh - and don't even talk to me about a pet deposit - the people who rented the house before us paid a $300 deposit, which didn't even cover the cost of having the carpets professionally cleaned before we moved in.

cruzarts avatar
Steve Cruz
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

There is a reason some landlords do not allow pets in their rental properties: HUMANS have abused the situation. As for renters, it is not "their home," they are occupying for a fee. What next, a law for renters who are bothered by RENT?

annaharding avatar
Anna Harding
Community Member
3 years ago (edited) DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

My parents rented to a guy who was a store manager. They assumed he’d be a responsible person. He said he had one cat. They noticed he hadn’t been around for three weeks, didn’t answer his phone and the house smelled from the outside. Inside were four cats, a dead ferret, open bags of pet food and NO Litterboxes!!! The house stunk. They hired a professional company to remove the smell. The entire house needed to be gutted.

gerry1of1 avatar
Gerry Higgins
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

This is a horrible idea. I manage an apartment building and I'm an animal lover but we stop allowing pets because there are too many Bad Pet Owners. Who don't train them properly. Won't keep them under control. Don't practice proper pet hygiene {not changing litter boxes often enough}. Etc Etc Etc.

tuo avatar
karenjohnston avatar
Louloubelle
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I'm an animal fanatic. But, I'm hesitant to make this a law. While most people I know take care of their pets, you see horror stories of people being completely irresponsible with them, letting them defecate and urinate where ever they want. I'm not a landlord, nor will I ever be one, but I can see where this could be a huge problem for them. I have had cats that have urinated inappropriately. Getting that smell out is near impossible.

phil-lucas avatar
Lucas
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I can see why people have this reaction but is it based on a working knowledge of the problem? I do have a working knowledge. The horror stories I have seen, working on literally 100s of properties, it really isn't the pets. If the home is damaged, cat urine (or human - believe me that's not pleasant either) and in the many, many ways I have seen homes destroyed (people are the problem not pets) then the person has to be made to pay for the damage. If it means replacing flooring then so be it - it's on the tenant as to how much damage they want to end up paying for. If this becomes law it has to be with protection for the property owner to recoup any losses caused by any damage - as it should be anyway. The only way you can guarantee rental properties aren't going to be damaged is to never rent them out at all. If property owners are that worried about the damage caused by pets then they've clearly been extremely lucky to get away with there being no damage caused by people.

Load More Replies...
maryl115 avatar
Mary Dellenbusch
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Can I just say that the word "owner" should never be used when speaking of our fur kids! We own cars, clothes, etc...never, never do we own our fur kids! What a damn insult. And if "some" of the landlords want to be d***s about pets, why not be the same with children?! I find they are much more bothersome and annoying than any animal.

demstaraus avatar
DemstarAus
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

We have faced this just recently. The rental market where we are is fierce. -1.5% vacancy rate for rental properties. Many houses are no pets and talking to real estate agents some have agreed that there should be laws that prevent a flat-out ban on pets. It's already lightening, however a landlord can say pets considered but not accept applications for pet owners, or claim special circumstances so it really doesn't do much yet. As others have said, children are often just as or more destructive than pets and nobody asks parents to pay child deposits. Obviously laws are different everywhere, but here you pay 4 weeks rent up front as a bond/deposit, then two weeks rent in advance. I suppose parents just assume they won't get all of their deposit back at the end of the tenancy. Tenants with pets are required to have carpets professionally cleaned and pest controllers in before they move out. Also, inspections happen every 3 months regardless of pets/children.

lara_harris avatar
Lara Harris
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I don't see why landlords would need an additional deposit for pets. We already pay a security deposit in the UK and are already responsible for damage done. Theres also already an issue for renters getting that deposit back where many unscrupulous landlords claim damages that don't exist. I rented for years and twice had to threaten to take a landlord to court to get my deposit back. I took pictures of every room the day I took possession and the day I left and would email them to the landlord prove how I left the place. One landlord claimed I'd damaged a door and another claimed he had to bring cleaners in. Fortunately I had evidence that wasn't the case. I can just image what those two would have claimed if I'd had pets.

anne-colomb1986 avatar
cassiushumanmother
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

In France it is forbidden to forbid animals, unless it's a vacation rental. The pet owner is responsible for his animals and for the damages who may occur, we have home insurances called "civil responsibility", it's in the civil code that every owner is reponsible for his pets. If a landlord write "animals forbidden" on the lease, it's illegal and you can rent it and live here with your animals without any trouble.

shari_custer avatar
Shari Custer
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I was relieved that this was in the UK and not the US because I'm a renter (I don't own any property) and I'd hate to be forced to live in a building that allowed people to own dogs. Being a responsible pet owner is more than having a dog that is trained and well-cared for. It's also about not leaving your dog alone all day while it barks in distress and your neighbors have to hear it for hours. I've never known one dog owner who would take responsibility for their pet's noise while they were out of the house. Who is going to enforce any sort of control in this respect if landlords are forced to allow pets? Americans are already some of the most inconsiderate neighbors on the planet (who talk about their right to do whatever they want, but don't take any responsibility for their actions). If they are further empowered, it will only be more miserable for their unfortunate neighbors.

dfreg avatar
Leodavinci
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

There hasn't been a pet owner that we've rented to whose pets didn't leave damage. One renter's cats damaged a custom dining room booth so badly it had to be thrown out. If we didn't have to rent out, we wouldn't do it any longer.

chi-weishen avatar
chi-wei shen
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

My oldest son lives in an apartment complex with a strict no-pets-rule. They especially advertise this towards people with allergies, and a considerable share of tenants seem to be allergic to cats. Each tenant knew before signing a lease that neither dogs nor cats are allowed (it doesn't apply to pets that are permanently encaged like birds in a cage or like fish in an aquarium). Each tenant could rely on this rule if they wanted to live in a pet-free environment for whatever reason. A law changing such a situation where non one was forced to live there would be the wrong way.

phil-lucas avatar
Lucas
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

And yet there are things like Bird Fancier's Lung (look it up) and even allergies to fish as pets so if there is a 'strict' no-pets-rule they should do it properly if that's the market they're going for. This law would benefit a lot of people. Deep cleaning between lets, making pet owners pay for any damage - that is reasonable. My work involves me working on properties between lets (and during) so I can speak from experience as to who makes the worst tenants - it isn't pet owners. The damage I see is rarely caused by pets. People though... people are frequently disgusting.

Load More Replies...
rl_2 avatar
R L
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

If the landlord does not want a tenant with pets, could he not say that the property isn't suitable? Would he not have rights to decline an application on personal preference, or will that start a whole 'you're discriminating against me' debacle?

dizasterdeb avatar
Rosie Hamilton
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

The new bill will not mean that tenants have an “unconditional right” to own pets in their properties. There would be a 'pet requirement test'. Also, the right to get back any money lost if there is damage - which would be the case no matter if it was the pet or the human causing the problem.

Load More Replies...
jamie1707 avatar
jamie1707
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Why don't we work on housing the poor human souls who are homeless, then lets tackle pet ownership.

sperenity avatar
Sperenity
Community Member
3 years ago (edited)

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

I disagree with the bill. As Chei-Wei Shen said, there are people who are allergic to pets. Not to mention, there are those who have cynophobia. If this applied to every apartment complex or places run by a landlord/lady, there will be the majority group who have to hope that the apartment does not have pets. If it passes, I hope the tests they run will be enforced so that there might be responsible owners. After all, who would want a barking dog through the walls in the middle of the night?

orders_4 avatar
Liam Walsh
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

That can be a problem that occurs for people who own their homes, have extensive gardens and still can end up with a neighbour that doesn't stop their dog barking. Hardly just a problem in the rental sector.

Load More Replies...
benicia_99 avatar
Azure Adams
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

There should be a different rent for children. They and families who have multiple children tend to destroy things at a much greater rate and greater level of destruction than a simple dog or cat. Children are louder, needer, much more unpredictable, and generally pricier. My cat sleeps most of the day, cleans her own butt, and is litter trained. Families and children should NEVER get special treatment of privileges. It just encourages more irresponsible breeding

chimesstreet avatar
Tabitha L
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I have often wished there were child-free airplane flights. But hey, now there is coronavirus. So a kid screaming and kicking my seat almost sounds fun. Almost.

Load More Replies...
kathrynbaylis_2 avatar
Kathryn Baylis
Community Member
3 years ago (edited) DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I hope this crosses the pond to the US too. We’re lucky in our rental, but if we moved we’d be in a world if s**t because we have four cats and a dog (all rescues—-one cat out of a barn, the dog off the street, one cat dumped in a neighbor’s yard, and two cats dumped in our yard—-one as a tiny five week old kitten!). Our house is clean as a whistle—-people who visit always comment on how they’d never know we had five pets because the house is tidy, in good repair, and does not smell of animals—-but I know another landlord would either turn us down or charge us out the wazoo for rent and pet deposit—-and that’s only IF we could find a friendly rental in the first place!

joeymarlin avatar
Joey Marlin
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

This type of legislation has already been passed in many other countries and is working well. It is to help those who lose their home but have pets so struggle to find somewhere to rent. They will need to prove themselves responsible. If they don't look after the property they'll get evicted - happens already (Covid situation aside). This isn't about serial renters who treat places badly and I've seen enough of those to know they are bigger problem by far.

Load More Replies...
kayrose avatar
RoseTheMad
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I hope this law passes. It's so freaking hard to find a decent house or even flat (apartment) that will allow your pets. I got really lucky with my current home with 3 cats, but for others, they're not as lucky. For many people, pets are literally a kind of therapy. And I'm not just talking about certified "therapy pets" and the like, I mean any pet.

mjw0sysascend_com avatar
lara
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Trust me on this NO pet can even begin to approach the damage ONE child can do.

james_fox1984 avatar
Foxxy (The Original)
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

My dog must be an exception. He chewed up roughly a square metre of lino flooring, almost chewed straight through the front door, the cords of my stereo speakers, destroyed 3 sets of blinds, chewed the cords of my slow cooker and george foreman grill and that is all I can think of right now. He is much better now. The landlord was okay about all the damage because we replaced all the lino, the front door and the blinds. He actually didn’t want us to leave and said we left the house in better condition than when we moved in.

Load More Replies...
kim-bowie avatar
Kim
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I agree that pets do less damage than some kids and many adults do. I’d be more worried about someone having lots of home parties and people coming over than someone having a companion animal. I’m not saying pets never do any damage, but to be fair most animals are much more well behaved than many humans are... lol.

banjopeppers avatar
Banjo Peppers
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

In my experience, humans make the loudest, messiest, and most destructive neighbors. It’s easier to tune out a dog barking than a child shrieking bloody murder, the smell of wet dog in the hallway dissipates faster than the smell of marijuana or burnt fish, people leave garbage all over the lawn and leave messes indoors. What’s also stupid is places that charge extra damage deposits for dogs even though cats will scratch the walls, rip up the screens, and get on top of the thing that holds the blinds. Just saying they shouldn’t charge less for cats than dogs, it should at least be equal.

ravinanimje avatar
ravina nimje
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Hope this law will be there in the whole world. We need more positive laws in life.

sammyanne1_sh avatar
Helen Haley
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I think if you can be licensed as a responsible pet owner you should be able to rent most places with 2 pets. I think weight or breed restrictions is reasonable because a sporting breed in a 600 sq ft apartment would just be cruel to the dog. I've seen the damage well behaved owners and pets do to a place vs 2 kids and an irresponsible adult. Pets are almost inconsequential, it is all about how responsible the person is, not who makes up their household.

ajones_1 avatar
A Jones
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

It be fair to add fees or something extra for damage deposit should the landlord have to handle a tenant with a pet. Pets can cause quite the additional damage if left unsupervised and/or untrained.

carrielaughs avatar
Carrie Laughs
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

It states that "anyone who wants to bring a pet into a rented property would have to pass a “responsible ownership test,” including a checklist that would be fulfilled with vaccinations, microchipping, and (in the case of dogs) being responsive to basic commands". It isn't meant to be an unconditional right. Anyone breaking the rules of the tenancy would be evicted and made to pay for any damage, just as they would if they damaged the property anyway.

Load More Replies...
martingibbs734 avatar
martin734
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I own a couple of properties that I let out and I have no problem with tenants keeping pets. The only extra condition is that any damage caused by the pet must be rectified as soon as is reasonable at the tenants own expense.

deb-lucas avatar
Dilly Millandry
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Good for you. 👍 Though I expect you would also want any damage caused by the tenants to be rectified at the tenants expense - things over and above normal wear and tear I mean.

Load More Replies...
marneederider40 avatar
Marnie
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

What sort of irresponsible dog owner would keep a dog in an apartment? I don't get it. You might like it, but what a miserable life for the dog. The dogs we had, we would let them out in the backyward any time they wanted (and back in whenever they wanted) except late at night. They spent 75% of their time outside. I have had so much trouble with dog barking at the last house I owned, I can't imagine living next to 5 apartments with dogs. Sure, the owners should be responsible, but lots of people aren't. And all owners think their quiet dog is quiet when they are not home. Many dogs will bark incessently the entire time the owner is gone. If you want to rent, maybe you don't get a dog. People feel so frickin entitled these days.

chimesstreet avatar
Tabitha L
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Yes, I have new neighbors, and they let their dogs out for hours at a time. The dogs seem to bark the entire time they are outside. It isn't so bad at 3pm, but at 6am, the constant barking does wear on my nerves. I can't imagine if I shared an apartment wall with these bark happy dogs.

Load More Replies...
dodsonmichelle avatar
Celtic Pirate Queen
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Nope. I'm sorry for any renter who has to deal with this dilemma, but not all pet owners are responsible. We moved into a house that I absolutely loved, but after 6 months I was still vacuuming up pet hair. I had to shampoo the carpet in the basement about once a month because of the pet odor. (I also washed the walls repeatedly). We finally talked the landlord into replacing it as a health hazard (both my daughter & I have asthma and couldn't spend a great deal of time down there). I couldn't believe the pad when they pulled it up. The room was about 15 x 20 and there wasn't a spot on it that didn't have a urine/poo stain. Unless your pet is a "strictly outdoors" critter, I think landlords have every right to protect their investment. Oh - and don't even talk to me about a pet deposit - the people who rented the house before us paid a $300 deposit, which didn't even cover the cost of having the carpets professionally cleaned before we moved in.

cruzarts avatar
Steve Cruz
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

There is a reason some landlords do not allow pets in their rental properties: HUMANS have abused the situation. As for renters, it is not "their home," they are occupying for a fee. What next, a law for renters who are bothered by RENT?

annaharding avatar
Anna Harding
Community Member
3 years ago (edited) DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

My parents rented to a guy who was a store manager. They assumed he’d be a responsible person. He said he had one cat. They noticed he hadn’t been around for three weeks, didn’t answer his phone and the house smelled from the outside. Inside were four cats, a dead ferret, open bags of pet food and NO Litterboxes!!! The house stunk. They hired a professional company to remove the smell. The entire house needed to be gutted.

gerry1of1 avatar
Gerry Higgins
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

This is a horrible idea. I manage an apartment building and I'm an animal lover but we stop allowing pets because there are too many Bad Pet Owners. Who don't train them properly. Won't keep them under control. Don't practice proper pet hygiene {not changing litter boxes often enough}. Etc Etc Etc.

tuo avatar
karenjohnston avatar
Louloubelle
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I'm an animal fanatic. But, I'm hesitant to make this a law. While most people I know take care of their pets, you see horror stories of people being completely irresponsible with them, letting them defecate and urinate where ever they want. I'm not a landlord, nor will I ever be one, but I can see where this could be a huge problem for them. I have had cats that have urinated inappropriately. Getting that smell out is near impossible.

phil-lucas avatar
Lucas
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I can see why people have this reaction but is it based on a working knowledge of the problem? I do have a working knowledge. The horror stories I have seen, working on literally 100s of properties, it really isn't the pets. If the home is damaged, cat urine (or human - believe me that's not pleasant either) and in the many, many ways I have seen homes destroyed (people are the problem not pets) then the person has to be made to pay for the damage. If it means replacing flooring then so be it - it's on the tenant as to how much damage they want to end up paying for. If this becomes law it has to be with protection for the property owner to recoup any losses caused by any damage - as it should be anyway. The only way you can guarantee rental properties aren't going to be damaged is to never rent them out at all. If property owners are that worried about the damage caused by pets then they've clearly been extremely lucky to get away with there being no damage caused by people.

Load More Replies...
maryl115 avatar
Mary Dellenbusch
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Can I just say that the word "owner" should never be used when speaking of our fur kids! We own cars, clothes, etc...never, never do we own our fur kids! What a damn insult. And if "some" of the landlords want to be d***s about pets, why not be the same with children?! I find they are much more bothersome and annoying than any animal.

demstaraus avatar
DemstarAus
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

We have faced this just recently. The rental market where we are is fierce. -1.5% vacancy rate for rental properties. Many houses are no pets and talking to real estate agents some have agreed that there should be laws that prevent a flat-out ban on pets. It's already lightening, however a landlord can say pets considered but not accept applications for pet owners, or claim special circumstances so it really doesn't do much yet. As others have said, children are often just as or more destructive than pets and nobody asks parents to pay child deposits. Obviously laws are different everywhere, but here you pay 4 weeks rent up front as a bond/deposit, then two weeks rent in advance. I suppose parents just assume they won't get all of their deposit back at the end of the tenancy. Tenants with pets are required to have carpets professionally cleaned and pest controllers in before they move out. Also, inspections happen every 3 months regardless of pets/children.

lara_harris avatar
Lara Harris
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I don't see why landlords would need an additional deposit for pets. We already pay a security deposit in the UK and are already responsible for damage done. Theres also already an issue for renters getting that deposit back where many unscrupulous landlords claim damages that don't exist. I rented for years and twice had to threaten to take a landlord to court to get my deposit back. I took pictures of every room the day I took possession and the day I left and would email them to the landlord prove how I left the place. One landlord claimed I'd damaged a door and another claimed he had to bring cleaners in. Fortunately I had evidence that wasn't the case. I can just image what those two would have claimed if I'd had pets.

anne-colomb1986 avatar
cassiushumanmother
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

In France it is forbidden to forbid animals, unless it's a vacation rental. The pet owner is responsible for his animals and for the damages who may occur, we have home insurances called "civil responsibility", it's in the civil code that every owner is reponsible for his pets. If a landlord write "animals forbidden" on the lease, it's illegal and you can rent it and live here with your animals without any trouble.

shari_custer avatar
Shari Custer
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I was relieved that this was in the UK and not the US because I'm a renter (I don't own any property) and I'd hate to be forced to live in a building that allowed people to own dogs. Being a responsible pet owner is more than having a dog that is trained and well-cared for. It's also about not leaving your dog alone all day while it barks in distress and your neighbors have to hear it for hours. I've never known one dog owner who would take responsibility for their pet's noise while they were out of the house. Who is going to enforce any sort of control in this respect if landlords are forced to allow pets? Americans are already some of the most inconsiderate neighbors on the planet (who talk about their right to do whatever they want, but don't take any responsibility for their actions). If they are further empowered, it will only be more miserable for their unfortunate neighbors.

dfreg avatar
Leodavinci
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

There hasn't been a pet owner that we've rented to whose pets didn't leave damage. One renter's cats damaged a custom dining room booth so badly it had to be thrown out. If we didn't have to rent out, we wouldn't do it any longer.

chi-weishen avatar
chi-wei shen
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

My oldest son lives in an apartment complex with a strict no-pets-rule. They especially advertise this towards people with allergies, and a considerable share of tenants seem to be allergic to cats. Each tenant knew before signing a lease that neither dogs nor cats are allowed (it doesn't apply to pets that are permanently encaged like birds in a cage or like fish in an aquarium). Each tenant could rely on this rule if they wanted to live in a pet-free environment for whatever reason. A law changing such a situation where non one was forced to live there would be the wrong way.

phil-lucas avatar
Lucas
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

And yet there are things like Bird Fancier's Lung (look it up) and even allergies to fish as pets so if there is a 'strict' no-pets-rule they should do it properly if that's the market they're going for. This law would benefit a lot of people. Deep cleaning between lets, making pet owners pay for any damage - that is reasonable. My work involves me working on properties between lets (and during) so I can speak from experience as to who makes the worst tenants - it isn't pet owners. The damage I see is rarely caused by pets. People though... people are frequently disgusting.

Load More Replies...
rl_2 avatar
R L
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

If the landlord does not want a tenant with pets, could he not say that the property isn't suitable? Would he not have rights to decline an application on personal preference, or will that start a whole 'you're discriminating against me' debacle?

dizasterdeb avatar
Rosie Hamilton
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

The new bill will not mean that tenants have an “unconditional right” to own pets in their properties. There would be a 'pet requirement test'. Also, the right to get back any money lost if there is damage - which would be the case no matter if it was the pet or the human causing the problem.

Load More Replies...
jamie1707 avatar
jamie1707
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Why don't we work on housing the poor human souls who are homeless, then lets tackle pet ownership.

sperenity avatar
Sperenity
Community Member
3 years ago (edited)

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

I disagree with the bill. As Chei-Wei Shen said, there are people who are allergic to pets. Not to mention, there are those who have cynophobia. If this applied to every apartment complex or places run by a landlord/lady, there will be the majority group who have to hope that the apartment does not have pets. If it passes, I hope the tests they run will be enforced so that there might be responsible owners. After all, who would want a barking dog through the walls in the middle of the night?

orders_4 avatar
Liam Walsh
Community Member
3 years ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

That can be a problem that occurs for people who own their homes, have extensive gardens and still can end up with a neighbour that doesn't stop their dog barking. Hardly just a problem in the rental sector.

Load More Replies...
Popular on Bored Panda
Trending on Bored Panda
Also on Bored Panda